PFAS Contamination Update with Clean Cape Fear Co-Founder Emily Donavan

0:03 Who would pay for this epidemiologist? I would have Force do power chemours to to it or would have, you know, be funded by the EPA. So we are requesting that the EP. I mean, the EPA has the authority under tusker to require chemours or Dupont whoever they whoever legally is responsible to pay for the studies. Now, we're not asking that they conduct the studies. We don't want chemours and Dupont to conduct the studies. We want them to pay for independent researchers to conduct the studies. We think that that is a more Equitable and third party and justifiable solution than to require taxpayer funds be used for this. And then one other thing that I wanted to point out with this lawsuit is that we felt like we felt an obligation really to the rest of the country to file this appeal. Because if we let this dismissal stand, it is setting a dangerous and could catastrophic precedent with In the EPA. Welcome to the environmental transformation podcast where we talk with industry leaders, climate Champions and sustainability professionals, who are making an impact in their businesses.

1:20 Today, each leader solving complex challenges and providing Solutions within the respective areas of expertise. And here's our host, Sean Grady. Hello ET Nation. I'm excited to announce that. I've updated my website. That provides listeners more access to episode content and information about the podcast. Please take a moment and visit the website and sign up for email notifications and blog postings also check out our sponsors page to see who supports the show. We can't think these industry leaders enough. Finally, I would really appreciate if you would take a moment and post a review and rate the podcast episodes, either from my website or from within your podcast app, This helps the podcast get more exposure on Apple podcast and other podcast networks.

2:09 Also please send me comments and recommendations on topics that you want to hear about. I hope you enjoy the new website so check it out at www.shawnacoronado.com. Welcome to the environmental transformation podcast. I'm your host, Sean Grady. And today's guest is a repeat guests. This. She's a returning guest to the show. We're so excited to have Emily Donovan back. And for those of you who haven't watched or listened to our previous episode on the clean Cape Fear. You know, it was a really good one, but we're going to bring her back today. Get some updates.

2:51 Emily is the co-founder of clean Cape Fear. It's a Grassroots community group, which form Was formed in 2017 after learning Dupont chemours, spent nearly 40 Years of releasing, large quantities of pfos into drinking water supply, you know, Wells or not Wells but into their drinking water supply used by over 300,000 North Carolina residents in containment over 450 or 4500 private Wells near the Fayetteville manufacturing facility. So she's worked tirelessly on pfos contamination crisis. On the national stage, and she's also been, you know, supporting the sum of the lobby day efforts in, Washington DC and did a post live event panel, discussion with Mark Ruffalo and the lawyer of the dark Waters movie, Robert Palazzo, Emily, that's a lot going on. Thanks for joining the show.

3:48 Looking forward to our conversation, welcome, it's great to be here. Thank you for having me back. Absolutely, absolutely. So let's do this one. Let's do a quick reset for the new listeners who maybe didn't see the or listen to the old episode. Let's talk a little bit about, you know what, you know, where little bit. Tell us about clean Cape Fear and what your mission is. So, we are like, you said in the intro, where a Grassroots community group, we formed after learning about Dupont, and chemours dumping atrocious levels of pee fast and charging, he water supply. And so, for the last nearly six years, we have really been fighting to hold our elected leaders. Accountable government agencies. Basically everyone that has a hand and trying to make our community whole again we are working to Rally them around this topic and build general, public awareness and keep pushing and keep fighting.

4:41 I mean, the landscape has changed tremendously from when I started we talked about P fast. Now, as a national topic, it is, you know, on the federal, the federal level, something that we are seeing reported More in National media. So it's not just a localized issue anymore, it's not just a couple of contaminated communities. I mean this is a problem that is so widespread I mean it's it is in my mind a global Public Health crisis and I know I'm not alone alone in a feeling that way. Absolutely, I feel the same way. It's like it's everywhere everywhere, including in us and and that is an, it's in us without our consent. And I think that is the more people are aware of just kind of this sort.

5:27 There's a lot of things that can keep us up at night and but I think this one it really hit our community hard but it has also hit so many other communities and we're fine. We're learning just at even tiny doses the impact to have chronic exposures of this and it's just the nature of them. I mean they're called Forever chemicals. For a reason there is no proven safe disposable disposal method. They are used unfortunately in nearly everything there's limited to no regulations. And and there's thousands of them in commercially. Yeah right. Right now. They're everywhere, there's ml, thousands, thousands of these things there forever.

6:07 They don't break down the environment they do cause cancers and other human you know effects and I think we're still learning. We have a lot to learn on what those true effects are to our to our the exposure. We're seeing well miss Carter, I'm sorry. You make a really good point there. When you say, I mean this is, this is a concern is that when we look at Us and health experts. They're saying nearly every system that they test on health effects related to pee fast, exposures, they're finding some sort of impact on nearly every organ system in the human body, right? Right, I mean, that's, you know, just watch that dark Waters movie and your mind just starts to go. It's you can't believe it, you know, it's unbelievable. Well, you know, recently, there's been a lot of talk about the epa's, new proposed, drinking water MC else. How do you think that'll affect Cape Fear And chemours in the in your area?

7:02 All right, you know, this is a really good first step. I mean it will it and when we put it in perspective there's a couple of things that I see play out. I mean, like I said, I attended the press conference. I was given the distinct honor of introducing administrator Regan to make the announcement. I mean, so this was a huge, I think moment not just for our community, but really, for drinking water in the United States there. These mcls which are essentially drinking water standards, they're being proposed for 6p fast and in the car. The thing that I think is important to understand is that it has been decades since the EPA has issued drinking water standards. I mean, that just shows you the Brokenness of this system. I mean, we are, there are water utilities that are still using World War One technology for drinking water clean up. Up or to clean and filter tap water. I mean, and we're dealing with 21st century, chemistry and chemicals.

8:04 And so there's a huge divide and disconnect between how we are serving up drinking water and the United States versus the contamination that's happening. And the lack of regulations around a monitoring for these contaminants and then be setting regulations around them. So that utilities are held accountable for making sure that they are. You detecting noticing and cleaning them up. So that We can protect public health because I think what we forget mean water is free should be free. It is, I mean, we pay a basic face when I say water is free, it's free. If you go to the, you go to a restaurant, you can order a glass of water and that is free. It is it is our basic human, right? So it should be easily accessible, but it also shouldn't be giving us cancer. Right?

8:48 So what do I think about the, the current, the, you know, the current mcls that are being proposed MCL stands for maximum contaminant levels, which is Really. Again, like I said, another term for drinking water standards. What I think is important about this for our region is that you pretty much our entire Water Systems. There's three big water districts in our area that serve half a million residents and those Water Systems would already be triggered if these proposed standards were put in place tomorrow we would we would exceed them in our utilities would need to intervene and intervene quickly. I mean, the good news is that we're already doing that the Down here, this has been on their radar for five years, six years. And so they are in the works right now of upgrading their facilities.

9:35 The sad news is that those upgrades are costing ratepayers a ton of money hundreds of millions of dollars. And the burden of that is falling on the ratepayers. It is not falling on the responsible parties, it's not falling on chemours, chemours is refusing and they are in active litigation against paying for these upgrades. And so our utilities are having to build these Process. Put them into place raise rates so that they can provide the service to the community while. Also suing and fighting to get rich, you know, to get the cost picked up by the responsible party. Now if you're a private well honor, it's a different situation and again aren't the scope and magnitude of our crisis down here is huge it spans. What I want to say like eight counties and impacts over 6,000, private Wells near the Evil facility. It is now impacting private Wells as far away as Topsail Beach and Calabash.

10:34 And for those that don't know, North Carolina very well. That's about 80 miles away from the facility near the coast. It's impacting the water systems. Like I said, half a million who have who get their water from the Cape Fear River. It's a massive scale and scope for the contamination. If you're on a private, well, you do have some protection. Through a consent agreement, that was signed in 2019 that consent agreement. If these, if these drinking water standards go into effect by the EPA, that would actually open up some more resources, to some private, well, owners in our region. And so, there is some benefit to making sure that that this these drinking water standards, get approved.

11:20 And you can also see because it would directly benefit the community that we can imagine. The industry is not interested in. I can getting these past and we're starting to see signals in the media that they're fighting back. There's that right? Well I mean it's probably not a surprise. I mean for four parts per trillion is a very low number to achieve for cleanup standard for most, you know. Well, even for typical treatment systems, even good treatment system. That's a very low number. I mean, it is a shame to see that the consumer of the the residents of these communities of these The communities are the ones paying for all of this infrastructure upgrade into these treatment facilities. When the polluters there, you know, fighting against you know, supporting local communities and not really being a good corporate Steward are a Citizens that, you know, it's just really a shame and that that's happening. So I like that there's new limits that are being proposed. Do they go far enough?

12:21 Do we really have the best? You know I mean do we have enough science that says Should be more than six or, you know, I think we need more, you know, and I'm just really concerned about that. I think, you know, there recently were for Community Environmental Group petitions, and petitioning, the EPA to require chemours to conduct critical. EP epidemiology studies on, you know, fifty four of these toxic chemicals. That puts a lot of, you know, residents in North Carolina at risk. You know, can you update us on that petition? And that you guys submitted and why, you know, why was it dismissed?

13:02 Because that's basically the big aha update. But why was it this dismissed? And what impact will that have on the community and others? Yeah, I'm having to do that. You know what? I'd love to Circle back and just finish up a thread from the earlier question. You raised a really great point about is this enough addressing just 6p fasts and you're absolutely right, it's not enough. And one thing that we work we requested in my public Comments, when I was introducing the administrator during the Press event was that we needed to class approach. We need to regulate as a class and we need a whole-of-government approach. We need more than just the EPA working to address this. We need every level and layer of government addressing this P, fast contamination crisis. So that we are constantly readdressing it, every five every ten years.

13:53 And then, another thing I wanted to point out is you said, is it Is it enough? I mean four parts per trillion. Absolutely. Like you just said low and there's some of the lowest detective levels or detection levels that utilities are being hit with. Here's one benefit of that. Is that if we're treating for PS at that level than likely utilities will be cleaning out and treating other container. Contaminants. Absolutely yeah. Heard the level and quality of drinking water is going to get exponential very quickly. So these are, I think important Investments to be made, I think it is important to About the cost. One, other thing to remember, is that last June of last year, the EPA issued interim Health advisories for pfoa and pfos.

14:37 Which when you refer to them, being with the proposed, drinking water standard is for parts, per trillion for PFO a mpf OS, but the health advisory, which was based solely on just the health science said that they needed to be below. Like, like, zero zero point. Yet me, they were. They were hugely low. Past it level of detection, that is the health level. And so, the proposal of four parts per trillion is accounting for feasibility, it is not solely based on health, it is feasibility. So I think that is a humbling reality that we need to address is that if we really are interested in health that level should be 0, but because we know that utilities, it's difficult.

15:21 There's a little bit of wiggle room to get to zero level. They're recommending for, as the And I think it's a nuanced, we detail, but it is a very important detail when we're talking about public health and my mind. Yeah, I mean, essentially non detect is a really hard, you know, achievable I mean, is it really achievable in today's, you know, world the way, you know, we see so many of these chemicals out there, you bring up a good point about, you know, the byproduct of treating other chemicals to non-detect limits. Or you know, such low detections because you're treating for pfos is a benefit to to all right. So I totally agree with you there. I think that's great.

16:12 Today's podcast is sponsored by Cascade environmental. The only Field Services contractor with the experts and equipment to support you from Project conception to completion. Even when it comes to pfos contamination, their field, Personnel are experienced in the strange approach. All is required, for p. Phosphorylated drilling their proprietary Waterloo app. System can support the most complete delineation of pfos contamination in soils and groundwater. And now their thermal team is preparing for their first field demonstration of thermal pfos treatment. If you'd like to learn more about Cascades pfos delineation and Remediation capabilities, contact them at www.caucusnj.org and b.com that's EnV.com. I have a question for you about, you know, should we establish or should the EPA establish a class of pfos chemicals to account for more short chain or, you know, launching variants that are in the list of six?

17:14 I mean there's thousands of these. So you know what should we do? Should we do a class? Like we do with Pete, you know, pcbs PCB does a class like so why don't? I mean there's already pressing it in this approach. Anyways has there been talk that you know of within EPA about establishing classes Well, I can't speak on, what's Happening inside the EPA, but I can say that when we look at the 6p fast that were proposed for drinking water standards to PFO, a mpf LS were given mcls of four parts per trillion. The other four PCS were treated as a mixture, which is kind of moving into that class basic slow, walk there, but it is definitely acknowledging that this is the direction they want to go in.

18:02 So now, you know, me who raised my children on this contaminated tap water, who has seen friends and loved ones die. I'm never going to be satisfied until something happens like yesterday, but that is not the world we live in and that is not realistic. So we have to live in the reality that we have before us, which is here's what we. Here's the arena, we can play in and the Rena that we can play in is we need a class based approach. We have this current Administration and this current EPA Is showing a commitment to get us closer. And we as residents United States, need to hold the line and continue to hold our Regulators accountable and say give us what we deserve which is which is Health.

18:46 Protective drinking water, not just clear drinking water. Yeah yeah you know when I travel the u.s. for work and other things, there are so many communities that don't really see. This issue popping up on their radar? I mean there, they don't feel like or they maybe not even aware that this is a, you know, a global, you know issue like, you know, existential threat to society in a sense, right? I mean because they're not affected like, you know, they're not, they don't live in an area that, you know, we're a chemical industry, you know, facility was discharging these types of chemicals and exposures, Grant it. We all know that people are do have exposures through the products that they're buying and they I'll realize it, we then that's the problem, right?

19:34 And I think, the more that we can do to elevate the awareness to the everyday citizen in the u.s., I mean, because again, a lot of people aren't recognizing this as a true threat. But people are in your communities and others that are exposed. I mean, this is a major situation, it's in, it's not affecting just health issues. I mean, think about the property issues of property, you know, values of homes that like nobody wants to live in those areas. It's Like you know, you it's really it's really having an impact you know, economically as well. You know, it's interesting that you say that because down in our area because we're on the coast were kind of an outlier.

20:14 We've had that I think Brunswick County, the county that I live in is fastest growing County are one of the fastest, growing counties in the nation. Definitely, the fastest growing County and the state. And I think Wilmington last year, topped, the list of most move to cities. Okay. So it's not stop. It is. And you know, some of that I think is that where it's we're not, we're not next to the facility and see if Pua has will see it. When I say cfp, why? It's Cape Fear, Public Utility Authority. It's the water district that serves the city of Wilmington. They've already they've already installed their upgrades and so the drinking water is is nearly pee fast free. I think they've gotten it down to levels of non detect to get there.

21:00 It's been a huge engineering. Feet and its cost a lot of money but they've been able to do that. The, the other thing that I wanted to point out that you raised is, you know, there's there's there's the cost the cost of Health. I mean I'm we hear constantly of communities that would absolutely love to have health protective and and and the best available drinking water but they live in a town or a community that just doesn't have the resources to do it. And so I will say that I am impressed that the Biden Administration and Congress last year. Past the infrastructure, the infrastructure act that is giving money and it specifically carved out funds for p fast, remediation of utilities.

21:42 Now, is that enough money? No, it's not enough money, but it is money for communities that need it. Like, in our situation, we don't need taxpayer funds to clean out our drinking water. We know who broke our water. We know who trashed it looted, it who points. We need our Regulators to Use every tool in the regulatory tool box to hold that, polluter accountable, and we need them to do that Across the Nation in other communities. And so one benefit of having these drinking water standards. If they get approved in the public comment, period is open right now and I highly encourage everyone to go and give public comment in support of these mcls, 4p, fast is that when this is approved, it is going to require utilities to start monitoring and testing regularly for these contaminants and This is how communities will know if they have this in their tap water because again when you're not monitoring and you're not testing yeah you don't know. Yeah and so this is this is a real great way to start this company.

22:44 You know, to open the conversation and start really addressing a public health threat that has been flying on the radar for decades, which we saw and the movie with Mark Ruffalo about Rob blah. Yeah, right. I know that that movie was transformational for me just Watching it and really rubbing my head around the the magnitude of pfos contamination in our country who actually it worldwide. Because, you know, I know in Europe, they're facing similar scenarios of contaminated pfos, watersheds from, you know, similar companies just like the ones here doing the same thing there and also you know, in Australia and others. So it is a big issue and if it's not that it's you know, the firefighting foam is from military installations and things like that that are also having Major impacts. And what's interesting is the federal government's involved with all of the feather you know the military operations is. So there are the responsible party. It's not the actual, you know, chemical manufacturer. It's the actual users of the chemicals and and so me and that's got to be a fine line between, you know, you know, a military federal government installation, you know, and then all you've got the regulatory body of EPA. Also, you know, trying to establish rules. And hey, you're going to regulate Our own company, you know, our own internal business, the government's essentially in one business to another.

24:09 It's essentially is what's happening here. I mean, agency to another, I mean, it's interesting how this is going to play out, but I think the overall benefits of having the new MCL is going to be major the. They also establishing it as a, you know, a toxic hazardous balloon is going to be big, especially for circle of because now means, like, New money will be able to be available for going in addressing. Remedial cleanups. For a lot of these contaminated sites that aren't there now. Yeah, and I'm glad you brought that up because I think that's an important detail is that if this Administration continues on its path, which I think they just recently released designating certain pee fast as hazardous substance.

24:55 And again, that unlocks Superfund law and Superfund law is the, is the mechanism in which the EPA can go and tell the responsible party, you need to pay for this cleanup. And so again, if we really want to see A Justice. And if we really want to achieve Equity, these are the things we do. So, I think there's a strong appetite in the United States. I think Americans, regardless of political Spectrum, at least in our community, really want to see corporations held accountable. That is the one thing that we are united on is that corporations should be held accountable. Yeah, amen. I approve, I totally agree with that with that. Well, let's double back on my one. Previous question that we kind of double backed on a brief. Another question about the update. Task a petition and, you know, the outcome of that and why it was dismissed.

25:43 And I have some questions about the, if the judge should have recused himself, from being a lifelong resident of the community. And I'm thinking, wow, it just, it looks a little, like, he almost had decide the other way, you know, that's just my, I guess, you know, Unbiased view or whatnot. But anyway, I'd like to hear your thoughts. Yeah. Well, we, we had we had a brief day in court. On Valentine's Day of this this past year and or, you know, this last Valentine's Day where where the judge was, was hearing the grounds to dismiss EPA. I think this was probably the most frustrating and devastating aspect of our Tosca litigation is that the the EPA was asking to dismiss our lawsuit and To give a little background for everybody.

26:35 But we filed a petition under the Trump Administration, using the toxic substance Control Act or other words, which we call Tosca and under Tosca, it offers a chance for communities to petition the EPA to to seek out health studies, where health studies are not available. We identified 54p fast that were coming specifically from chemours that we'd found in blood, human blood and food and the air and the soil. And in the Making water and we were asking to have access to health, study toxicity studies on those chemicals as well as mixture studies because again we didn't drink these and one chemical at a time. We drank them in a whole cocktail of toxic chemicals. And what does the additive effect have on the human body? And then also we were already exposed for decades? Yeah.

27:28 And so we're asking for our a longitudal human epidemiological study similar. Allure in model to the C8 science panel, that was done in Parkersburg West Virginia. Yep, as we know, like we know like, you know, let's get past all the road and studies and the guinea pigs and let's study the real guinea pigs in the room, which was our families and our community, so that we can get a Fighting Chance at understanding. What some of these illnesses are that we're seeing in our community, we're seeing recurrent cancers. That should be treated with conventional therapies that are just not. They're just not working, we're seeing rare cancers. I mean, we're seeing really, really odd, odd diseases and illnesses in Residence far too. Young to pass off as normal.

28:15 And so we're sounding the alarm locally and saying this doesn't feel right. This is too much illness to be normal. You need to come and study us. You need to give us access to cancer. Registries, you need to look at these kinds of cancer. Registries by our water districts and zip codes not by our County, where that information, Gets diluted and you definitely don't need to compare us against ourselves, which dilutes the data you need to compare this against communities in North Carolina that weren't exposed to pee fast chronically for decades so that we can really see what's happening. And so we're not getting access to any of those health studies. And so that's what formed we formed this Coalition with Center for environmental health, Cape Fear River, Watch and toxic-free Inc and so the four of us came together and we formed this petition.

29:01 We asked the the EPA The Trump EPA to Grant it. They denied it then the administration changed. So we said, let's try with the by an Administration. See what happens. We we resubmitted to the Biden Administration and they told us that they granted it but then when we went and read through the the granting, they granted 3% of our requests. So 97% of the tests that we requested they didn't they denied or they ignored. And so we sued under under a section with In Tosca. And so, we went into litigation and the EPA immediately filed to dismiss the lawsuit. So, that's what happened around Valentine's Day is that we were sitting in this courtroom listening to the judge and the judge I will give credit to judge Myers is that he was very honest, and he was very transparent, and he said this is hard.

29:54 I know that I need to be, I need to be as transparent as possible, because I was also raised in this community, but I also need to follow the law. And so, what happened in this particular case is that the judge was asking the question of does, the court have the legal authority to or jurisdiction over deciding if a petition has been granted or not? And the question came down to did, we file one petition, or did we file 54 petitions was, you know, an individual petition for each chemical that we were asking to be tested. We argued that we were, we filed 54. For many petitions within one, big document, the EPA said no sorry they filed one petition. The EPA said we granted it because we created a national testing strategy and that that National testing strategy will give this community what they need and that is the furthest thing from the truth.

30:50 I believe that we heard is that no the national testing strategy is a is a program that is helping inform the EPA on how to regulate P fasts. But that program is not giving us access. Us to the P fast. Doom. Yeah, the epidemiology data you want to see, you know, how exposure has affected the community, the especially in the pee fast that are in our blood right now, right? So so we we decided as a group that we were going to appeal. And so we actually filed the appeal today. And, and so that is that is happening. So we are we are moving into another District in the court system to try and get to try and get this overturned. Did you know e-tank is the only environmental Rental Equipment company in the industry that offers a 100% certified clean guarantee and no additional cost. Well this gives customers the Peace of Mind knowing that container contents from the previous renter, isn't going to cross contaminate the contents of the current customer and potentially cause liability concerns. You know.

31:56 E-tank also provides a one-of-a-kind complete maintenance program for all its rental items, including liquid, tight roll off containers, fluid transfer pumps, and filtration System components to learn more about the types of containers at pump. See tank supplies. Check out their website at www.esa.int. So, the next time you are faced with an environmentally challenging project, give e-tank a call to help solve your problem. It's just that easy. Well, that's encouraging. And I mean to that extent like a the fights still going. We're you know we're going to continue this fight. It just doesn't make sense. I think there's already precedent that the EPA have granted this type of a study now I think it's it was more.

32:43 The court was forcing do Ponte to do the, the pay for it. Now, how is this change? I mean, is this who would pay for this epidemiologist? I would have Force do power chemours to to it or would have, you know, be funded by the EPA. So we are requesting that the EP. I mean, the EPA has the authority under Tosca to require chemours or Dupont whoever they whoever legally is responsible to pay for the studies. Now we're not asking that they conduct the studies. We don't want chemours and Dupont to conduct the studies. We want them to pay for independent researchers to conduct the studies. We think that that is a more Equitable and third party and justifiable And then to require taxpayer funds be used for this.

33:31 And then one of the things that I wanted to point out with this lawsuit is that, we felt like we felt an obligation really to the rest of the country to file this appeal. Because if we let this dismissal stand, it is setting a dangerous and could catastrophic precedent within the EPA because what this would mean is that future administrations could take the toss competition and say publicly that they granted it when they barely granted anything in, I'm only they could say they granted it and then and then bury citizens ability to find any sort of legal recourse for that granting of the petition especially when work wasn't done. And so we feel that this needs to be looked at and it needs to it needs to be reassessed. Otherwise this is this we think is going to have long-standing repercussions for the for the nation. Yeah.

34:24 No, I agree. I agree. Well, I'm glad you guys are fighting that and continuing that the peole and let's see where that goes. And so hopefully the new judge that it will be assigned to will be a little more, you know, I guess sympathetic or understanding of the the requirements here or the expectation here that the really protect the citizens citizens there, what are your concerns around the this nrdc study that was released a you know and how they don't really address the Jane pfos chemicals that are going to go unmonitored, you know? Yeah, I'm glad you brought that up. So, last week that are two weeks ago, the nrdc launched, a peer-reviewed study, and in a scientific journal. And we participated in that, we submitted two samples, one from Oak Island and one from Ocean Isle and Brunswick County and what was what was shocking and alarming, I mean, we kind of knew we've known for a while.

35:24 We've got a lot of different P fast and Are our tap water, consistently appears to have some of the highest P, fash p-pass pollution, and the nation per multiple Nationwide studies. So we kind of figured we would be somewhere in the mix again. We were topping the charts just having the most unmonitored pee fast in our tap water. And at, at some of the highest levels there was, there was a sample from Maine that had just atrocious levels of P fast but the majority of the PFS in in that Ample is currently being monitored. And so, for this particular instance, what made our samples unique is that these were unmonitored pee fast.

36:05 And some of them are really Ultra short chain P fast. So, when we talk about short-chain, we're talking about the carbon-fluorine bond. So, like, pfoa pfos so stuff to see 8, that's 8, carbon-fluorine, bonds, and then, and then when you get down to Gen X, that's considered short chain, that's like a C6. And now we're talking about Ultra short chains, which are kind of Of in the C2 C4 range. So, we actually in this study found previously unmonitored pee fast and that none of our utilities had been testing for, it was like called pfp ra, and pfp are a was showing up, not just, if it was in the highest concentration, it was, it was one of the highest concentrations of pahs and Arctic Waters water samples but also throughout the whole entire study. Was showing up in Water Systems all over the nation and utilities weren't testing for it. Now I need to explain that the utilities down in my area have been voluntarily.

37:09 Testing for more pee fast than what the EPA recommends a requires. And we're doing that because we know that we have a huge contributor of pollution with the Fayetteville facility chemours is Fayetteville facility. And so it was shocking to find a pee fast that they weren't I'm testing for why this is important for the nation. And not just North Carolina, is that the EPA is again only proposing drinking water standards for 6p fast out of a universe of tens of thousands. The EPA has issued an unregulated contaminant monitoring role. And so in the next couple of years, utilities are going to be sampling for 29, different P fast and again, Part 5, right? That's the issue more five role, which they do every two years and so they've added 29, pfos limits there or you don't get constituents there.

38:06 Of course, that's not enough but I mean it's 29, it's better than 39 before. And then if you look at this nrdc study, the nrdc study is basically saying that was not enough. If you really want to see the scope of contamination across the United States, you need you need to test for the pee fast as a class. And so again here we get To we need to regulate pee fast as a class, we need to monitor for p fast as a class. And until we do that, we're not going to see the full scope of contamination. And again, why does this matter to communities? It matters when you get down to treatment technology. So we have all of these communities Across the Nation that are starting to plan on investing in, in water, infrastructure upgrades, and they're having to figure out. Well, what, what sister, what technology do I use? And what am I treating?

38:57 Art's. What is that standard? I'm trying to achieve. And so we take Wilmington's water district, for example. So, see if Pua is treating for ultrashort, team chain P fast. That means that they invested 46 40 to 46 million dollars in in granulated activated carbon very deep bed, granulated activated carbon filters and their regenerating those and recharging them on a very quick schedule. And so Really, they're changing the filters out very frequently so that they can make sure that the ultra short chain key, fast are not passing through into the tap water. Now, if they're not required to test for Ultra short, chain P fast, then they wouldn't be changing their filters out as much.

39:45 That would, that would mean that our rates would be lower. But that would also mean the trade-off is we would have polisher. Yeah. Right. And we don't really know or understand the Impacts the health effects of shortchange. Pfos chemicals, right? Gravy that there's not enough data are out there right now, too. Give an indication of its really, as toxic or more toxic, or it does have health effects mean. We're still wanting to know that information, right? Because we believe, since it's connected to pfos, you know, typical long chain ones. It's got to have an effect, right? I mean, it's our that's, we're going to think like that, right? Well, I think we do two things. Number one, when you don't know, you exercise precaution because again, drinking water is a basic human, right?

40:30 And it is a public health entity. And so, if you don't know, it's safe. 'F. It does not belong in anyone's tap water. So we exercise precaution. So what see if POA is doing is exactly correct. They are saying we will spend the money to make sure because we don't know if this is safe at any level, we're going to make sure no level is in there. Now, on the other side, we ask ourselves if we if we lack the data just because we don't have the data or just because it's short chain, short chain doesn't mean it's safe to drink. I know sometimes I've heard industry say. Well, short, train pee fast, don't bio accumulate. And one of the best analogies that I like is from a couple of scientists.

41:11 I've heard them say, but you drink alcohol chronically. And even though alcohol passes through your system in a few hours, it will have a chronic effect on your body over time and especially over a lifetime of exposure. We know that to be true. So using that same principle with chronic exposures to chemicals that may not bio accumulate in our body. Be like their cousins do does not necessarily mean that they are safe or less toxic. It just means that they're doing their damage for an hour or two instead of years, right, right. No, that's that's good. So so there needs to be more work done on, on the short chain. Obviously we need, we need more information. We need more studies.

41:55 They're also me to be good maybe if we have a whole class of those, right, you know, whole class setup for just a short chain impacts because we want those to be Considered in the sampling. Hopefully they'll you see Marvel start adding those expanding that pfos list. I mean it's probably going to take another year or so because it's a two-year cycle for that contaminant list. It goes out to the public, the drinking water facilities, where they have to actually, you know, sample this for, for a data observations for the EPA. But, well, let's do this. Let's dive into a little bit of this, you know, infrastructure, bill, that the B administration's put out, you know, the bill. Is is help, is established to help, you know, communities deal with, you know, with this emergent emerging contaminants, especially these smaller communities, is where I think most of the funding is going to be targeted to. So, you know, I'm one question goes to is like what about the larger communities, who are really impacted? I mean, you know, how did they get support from the infrastructure bill?

42:57 But at least they have something set up for the small community. So what do you think? That's how is that going to really help with this new proposal? Role in the EPA, chemical proposed chemical mcls. You know, I think this definitely, it helps alleviate some of the concerns. I think, one of the things I've heard for years from water, utility associations, when I was and visiting members of Congress trying to get them to pass legislation. Like this is is utility saying, don't make unfunded mandates, you know. So when you, when you set a drinking water standard And most, I wouldn't say most utilities but some utility associations will say how, how do we pay for that?

43:40 That is an unfunded mandate when you have us needing to test and treat. And again, unfortunately, this is why America's water systems, or where they're at today is because the focus has always been on how do we pay for it? Instead of, we should protect health and we should all work together to figure out how to pay for it. Not be so afraid to pay for it. That we don't a hold the responsible parties accountable because there are mechanisms Is in place if we just had a will we could get this this this funded properly. I mean one thing that I would personally love to see happen is I would love to see Congress pass a pee fast, use tax and a pee fast use tax would be fine industry. If you're going to keep using p fast, then you need to pay into a fund similar to kind of like how the banks are regulated with the FDIC and that is an insurance program for utilities. So that if they find out that they're impaired, And with this, with these drinking water, you know, with with P fastened, their drinking water that they can dip into that fund. And they can know that industry funded, that, that, that pot of money.

44:46 And that, that is what that is available for them to use. I mean, there's there's ways that the United States can work this out. Yeah. It just takes political will and it's Having the courage to quit cowering and Catering to Industry, right? I mean that's very Anissa that you approach. You just said, I'd like the leaking underground storage tank program. You know, almost every state has a program like that. So if you are an operator owner, operator of an underground storage, you know, tank and, you know, for fueling or whatever you're storing, you pay a tax or a fee into the leaking underground storage fund. So, when it's time to clean up that tank, when it leaks, there's money available to help you with the cleanup same concept, right? Let's let's do something like that. If you know, Oh, and establish something. I think that would be good.

45:37 That would be one way. I think it's important to to point out that we're not advocating either for continued uses of pfos. I think the writing's on the wall. Number one we've played with fire, we have played with a chemistry that we had no business playing with and we put it in places that it never belonged in. And and when I say we, I say industry did this and just re hit it, they lied about it. But when we started learning about those lies, that's when we should have been acting. And so there is a public accountability at that. We need to take a stand. And we need to make a push, and we need to force our elected leaders to make this a ballot box issue, and say we are done. We it because the cost of inaction is well above the cost of action. And I think the EPA even highlighted that, when they issued, their drinking water standards. They said, if you look at the cost of inaction, it's costing the United States billions and healthcare costs from These exposures, absolutely.

46:37 And we're not even talking about the hidden costs of like, of lost wages of, you know, there's so many go funnies in my community right now, lost wages, utility acting, you know, increase, utility charges that they're having the, I mean that just all eats away, you know, it's like, you know, the cumulative effect, right? I mean, it's horrible. Yeah, think about it, you know? And I do feel that that this infrastructure at Is a good step in the right direction. I do think that the money is it's not enough. We know it's not going to be enough. Just looking at what our communities are having to go through my, the water district that I live in Brunswick County is spending 120 million dollars to upgrade their treatment system. They've already had to raise rates once they're probably going to have to raise them again. And so we know that this is the this is a huge problem. So we need to make sure that the money is there because there should never be be a trade off from of Access to Health protective water which is a basic human, right? And affordability being in being told, you can't have it because you can't afford it.

47:45 Yeah, I was looking on the, on the website, the other day, about the infrastructure Bill. And there's, if you're on the epa's website, you can also see the actual state by state allocation of the funds that will go to, you know, the various affected communities or just, you know, in general the states to support the small. Communities that are affected by emerging contaminants. I was like okay I mean it's okay you know Indiana like they get 41 million dollars and you know a couple other gets you know 28 million dollars and a couple States. I mean I think there's only one state that gets like a hundred million which is like California or something. But other than that everyone is getting around 22. You know fifteen to twenty Thirty million dollars. That is that you like you said, that doesn't seem like a lot. When you've got these multimillion-dollar treatment plant upgrades that need to happen in a lot of these affected communities.

48:42 I mean the projects that are going to be funded well I mean there will be some but not enough, right? Well I mean when it goes back to a really really fascinating book, I read by Seth Siegel called Troubled Waters, which really takes us back to the root of how we got to where we are today, and it's that we stopped. Treating, our Drinking Water Supplies as sacred. When we introduced disinfectants and then we started allowing discharge permits into the bodies of water that we were using and we're talking like a hundred years ago to when we started getting into drinking water systems and modernizing them at that time.

49:22 There was there was a move away from protecting the source and keeping it as pristine as possible. And it became a we can just treat our way out of this problem and we can allow people to dump and we can allow Ow industry to use it as their trash can not thinking about the repercussions and then also not holding industry accountable. When they lie and hid, the things that they were putting in the water. And so this is kind of where we are today. As we are having to wake, you know, we are, we are waking up to a reality that our tap water is not protected, and in our source, for our tap, water is not being treated as sacred. Well, I mean the Aquatic Life inside these streams are also being affected which is also being you know eaten by some you know citizens that are fishing these these Waters of the state. You know it just is kind of like you said it's like this cumulative effect.

50:18 You know, it's a you do this part, it's going to just it's like it just goes through every chain of connectivity that we're involved with our life cycle. It's really, it's not good, it's not good. If you're listening to this podcast, I'll bet you may be thinking how can I level up in advance my career? If you want to get that promotion, increase your regulatory knowledge gain. Professional recognition and earn more money. Then it's time to obtain an industry credential from The Institute of hazardous material management. The I hmm offers eight credentials that are antsy approved for students experience, skilled employees without a degree and for the degree, professional looking.

51:01 To set themselves, apart from the pack, their credentials, focus on three main areas. Certified, hazardous material manager, the see. Hmm. The certified dangerous goods, professional the CD GP, and the certified safety, and health manager, the Cs. Hm, if you become an eye, hmm, credential professional. Then you will be in the top 1% of your profession and your credential will have a global reach. Check out their programs, they offer at That's www.ihs.gov/scholarship it today. Let's talk a little bit about maybe.

51:42 If you could, I understand that you guys working on a new, a new petition that you're going to be submitting, pfos chemicals, can you talk about, you know, that and what that might be? Yeah, so my realization clean Cape Fear. We reached out to the Berkeley law clinic out in California and we asked them, if they would help us write a Communications to the United Nations, Human Rights Commission to the special repertoire there, to issue a human rights violation for our region, based on our P fast, exposures. And so this we, you know, there's United Nations speak which is slightly different than Then how we would consider things here in the United States.

52:27 And so we are submitted a on Thursday. Sorry, I'm going to have to add edit me out here, but we filed, what, what is officially called with United Nations? A Communications. But that is something that here in the United States we would consider maybe a complaint. So we're filing a petition or a complaint with the United Nations and we're asking the United States to issue human rights violations here in the United States specifically. In the lower Cape Fear, River basin for 40 years of chronic exposures to pee fast contamination. Well, what type of Precedence do you think this would have with other communities that the United Nations may?

53:08 You know? Look at? I mean, in the u.s. there's a handful of these types of really impacted communities but you know, as we know, United Nations is global in its its approach to these types of atrocities and you know, and communities impacted Do you think they would also look at this and other areas of the world? Well, they already have. And I think that's and that's where we kind of got the inspiration and idea is that this particular Special Report or issued a human rights violation and Italy, I think two years ago for p fast contamination. And so we felt well, you know what, let's have this happen here in the United States for our community because what we're dealing with right now is chemours is actually trying to expand production and make more pee fast. There are asking our State Environmental rdq, so North Carolina's Department of Environmental Quality, our state Regulators.

54:03 They're asking to expand their air permit so that they can make more p fasts and we're pretty much done. We are tired of being a sacrifice Zone. We have had 40 Years of exposure and we deserve 40 Years of zero exposure 0p fast. So we don't want anymore and so we're saying no more chemours, no more. Expansion. And we feel that if we can have the full weight of the United Nations looking into this, that it'll give whatever courage is needed from our Regulators to step up and do the right thing but we also want to hold them accountable and say you know what, there's a you have played a role, you Regulators have played a role in allowing industry to to go unchecked for so long and it really is time time for you to use your existing Authority and do what is what is not just morally, right?

54:54 Does legally right under human rights law? So how would the United Nations come in and and, you know, have I guess jurisdiction or some sort of a lever to hold the EPA or other polluters accountable in this or government's? I guess accountable, how that goes, how would that work? So what would be the first step is that we issued this communication. And so then the special repertoire at the United Nations has 60 days to respond to to our communication. And so in that 60 days they can either dismiss the request or they can send letters of accusations to certain entities within our community that they feel need to act and so they can make recommendations based on International treaties and international laws.

55:41 And I think probably the biggest the biggest importance in leverage. We would have, is it's just if we have the United States, right now on the global scale saying that if they want to Be the beacon of a democracy then they need to start living into what that looks like. And you know that looks like protecting fundamental human rights. Protecting, I know protecting the rights of abortion protecting the right to education and freedom of Freedom of Information and freedom of choice and freedom of speech. And then also protecting basic human rights and bodily integrity and access to health information, and clean drinking water.

56:22 You know, these are all fundamental basic human rights that need. Need to be protected. And so we want to make sure that the right to clean drinking water and the right to a community that is not constantly being hammered with exposures from P fast. And in other talks, this is being protected. Well, it's great. I mean, I think that will definitely raise the L of, you know, Elevate the awareness Within These government agencies and these polluters and, and I think it can only help, you know, And hopefully result in change, right? I mean I think that would be fantastic. Anything else simile that we haven't covered that, you might want to hit on the why we've got you, you know, here we've covered a lot today which has been fantastic. Just getting an update.

57:09 Getting your take on the new proposed EPA. Drinking water levels. Is it is it going far enough or do we include enough of the, you know, pfos chemicals. In this proposed rule the new infrastructure bill? Is it enough? To really help all the communities in our, you know, our our nation. It's a good start. But, you know, this has been a great discussion. Anything else we should hit on? I think we've done a lot here in car lot of ground. No, I think we did. And I think what I would end with is just saying that, if we really want to address this, what what it is now recognized as a global contamination crisis, is we need to start finding green chemistry replacements for for existing That's uses we needed.

57:55 Well step one, we need to limit the pee fast in use to essential only which is what Europe is trying to do. The United States needs to adopt that we need to quit approving. New Uses of pee fast, we need to quit allowing new uses for existing pee fast and then we need to start funding and encouraged and development of replacement chemistry that meets green chemistry standards and and other other sustainable chemistry goals to make sure that we're not just putting ourselves in a, regrettable substitute like we did with pfoa and Gen-X. And so, if we get there, and then, we also need to clean up the existing exposures and all their forms, which is not just drinking water, but it's also our food supply. It's our soil, it's our beaches, its coding, our beaches here in Brunswick County, I'm participating in a study there and then we also need to look at getting access to those health studies because We need a Fighting Chance at being able to get Quality Medical monitoring and preventative care and we need to create a deterrent mechanism. And that's what I'm really hoping with some of this work that we're doing with United Nations, that we are calling on all of our leaders to create enforcement actions that deter corporations from compare continually, and habitually breaking the rules.

59:17 And if that means there needs to be criminal criminal investigations, and we need to start holding the people Behind These corporations accountable then Do it because so the only way we're going to see lasting change in my mind. So Emily. I mean, what if like a big donor came to you guys and said, hey look, we want to help fund Epidemiology studies in your reagent and we want to bring in as many as many residents to come in and do basically give their blood samples. So we can run these, these toxicology toxicology studies so we can get this information that we're all looking for. I mean, could that be an answer for the Cape Fear and the clean Cape Fear organizations here?

1:00:04 Absolutely. And I'm so glad you brought that up. We're actually, as we Launched this, as we're appealing, our Tosca lawsuit. We're also launching a legal defense fund, and so that money from the legal defense fund obviously, is helping us continue the legal fight, but any money that's put into that fund where earmarking it to use for health studies. And so yeah, if a donor wanted to come in and do that, let's talk, let's I'm thinking, you know, pay Bill Gates. Hey Ilan, mosque, you know, where are you guys? We I need you to come here and help us, and help our communities with it, that are buying your cars that are, you know, buying your computers. That you know, these these people should help out these communities.

1:00:50 If they are all talking about being sustainable and community-minded where the, you know, all the foundations that are out there, the, you know, the MacArthur Foundation and people like that that are really trying to push in on these these, these ideas, these are real. Problems going on in this cave here and I really love to see some donors come and help you guys if they were, how would they get ahold of you and this this fund that you have just that wished. Yeah. So we're going to have a link on our website. It's so clean Cape Fear dot-org. And if you go under take action, and you look at, I believe talks a litigation or talks a loss lawsuit, you'll be able to see a link there.

1:01:31 You can also go to Center for environmental health. Go to their Sites. Eeh dot-org. And they will have a link to the legal defense fund and so we'll have we'll have it in those two areas and then you can always check on social because will be advertising it on our social media. Thanks really. Well, let's get that information out, and when we get done here, you can send me a link to it. Will start to promote it as well. I think that'd be great because I think there are enough people out in the world who are, you know, looking for a cause to support. And let's see if we can drive somebody to your way. Perfect. Well, thank you so much for having me. I really appreciate this. Hey, thanks Emily. Great to catch up with you. As always, you know, God bless you and all the work you're doing and we'll keep up the good fight war will keep up and we'll keep in touch great. Thank you.

1:02:19 All right, goodbye. I want to thank our guests, Emily Donovan for coming out of the show today. If you want to learn more about clean Cape Fear and the work Emily's doing, you can go to www.cleaningservicestlouis.com or call to learn more. If you'd like to support the clean Cape Fear, legal defense fund, you can go to www.tsiyon.org backslash give Dash and c will also put a link to their contact information on my website too. In the future environmental transformation podcast, you can check us out on all the major podcast networks or from my website at www.shawnacoronado.com.

1:03:07 And remember, don't forget to hit the follow button. We would really also appreciate any feedback you can write for us on your podcast platforms, it helps us increase our placement in most podcast networks. Also, if you are watching on YouTube, please subscribe to the channel. Well, thanks for listening. And until next time, make a positive impact in someone's life today.